danprisk

I think what's shared is probably shaped by how different gym work looks visually? Athletes and media already share a lot of photos & videos of them riding their bike, and more structured on bike training doesn't look substantially different from general riding from the outside. Whereas gym work is visually very different. From an actual programming stand point, gym work is potentially worth focusing on as it's an area mountain bikers are more likely to be deficient in. If you just ride your bike a lot that will tend to include a lot of low intensity volume, as well as a good amount of terrain dictated efforts: essentially most bike rides include a portion that is effectively a fartlek workout. While I'm sure elite athletes are still doing a whole lot of structured intervals, for most of us that probably means we get a pretty decent coverage of endurance training on the bike.

The visualizations here really help see the way the race progressed. A bit of a suggestion for the graphs though: centring them on the mean time and reversing the values might make them better visually reflect racing. This way we would see the leader opening up a big lead as them moving up and further from the mean. Right now it feels a little out of place for riders losing time to be moving up and to the right.

@michaelandk2: Sure, if you just made the head tube taller and didn't change anything else. But I think when people say they want a taller head tube they usually mean they don't want any of the other numbers to change, which would effectively mean stretching the front triangle a little longer to maintain the reach numbers.

@michaelandk2: I don't think you quite can. Extra spacers should decrease both reach (BB -> steerer) and effective reach (BB -> grips), and less spacers and a higher rise bar should maintain effective reach, but do so by decreasing reach and increasing effective stem length (steerer -> grips). In either case you end up with less reach and a bike that rides differently relative to just having a taller head tube in the first place. But then I guess as long as the seat tube is short enough you can theoretically size up and offset the lost reach that way. I have no idea if the seat tube is short enough on this bike though, as for some reason it's reported in inches?

This looks like a good watch, but it's definitely not an untold story! https://www.thisisthemomentmovie.com/

Am I missing something here? It doesn't look like pedal kickback itself is being measured at all here, but instead modelled using wheel speed and travel. So you're not measuring if kickback happens, but rather if the conditions exist to satisfy the theoretical requirements for kickback? Without using some sort of measurement at the crank I'm not really sure what is gained in terms of the objective understanding of kickback here that you couldn't learn through a pure modelling exercise. The subjective experience part is interesting though! Understanding if we really feel kickback is one thing, but (if the processing speed is possible) I could also imagine an inverse setup that gives immediate rider feedback when kickback is detected being a useful way to help riders become more in attuned to what their bike is doing.

That's not far off what most sub-mortgage spec enduro bikes seem to be these days. Seems like 35-37lb or so i is pretty standard.

Not with Whoop data. It's wrist based HR only, which can be somewhat useful for averages over long periods (such as recovery, and getting a sense of a days exertion) but is next to useless for anything more fine grained, such as detailed race analysis. In activity analysis really needs more tailored data sources; particularly a HR chest strap, but power meters really help as well. Just try doing any kind of focused HR training using a wrist based HR monitor and you'll soon see how inaccurate they are! So the data could be interesting if it was collected with one of the companies that actually do a good job of in activity data (Garmin chiefly, but there's a few others as well) but partnering with Whoop is a pretty weird choice as it's really not the use case for that technology (Whoop is great for being an easy to wear all the time background data logging to look at big picture things). All using it here really does is give them some good marketing.

@TurboDonuts: But sag % is just a guideline to initial setup isn't it? There's no reason you couldn't run that firmer spring rate with the full travel and have exactly the same ride changes with a little extra travel still in the bank for when you need it.

I'm a little confused about adding the spacer to the shock. My understanding here is that spacers just externally limit available shaft travel. So wouldn't this mean that, given the same setup otherwise, the bike would ride exactly the same through the first 165mm of travel? I don't really understand what advantage is gained by losing that extra 15mm of potential wheel / body saving travel?